Incidence, Recognition, and Follow-up of Laboratory Evidence of Acute Kidney Injury in Primary Care Practices: Analysis of 93,259 Creatinine Results.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired acute kidney injury (CA-acute kidney injury) is under-recognized in the outpatient setting and is associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed the incidence of CA-acute kidney injury in an academic primary care practice and community health center and assessed recognition and follow-up as determined by repeat creatinine measurement (closed-loop). We reviewed 93,259 specimens for 36,593 unique patients from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2021. RESULTS: There were 220 unique patients with CA-acute kidney injury, defined as a > 75% increase in creatinine from baseline (incidence: 150/100,000; 0.15% per year). One hundred thirty seven patients (62.3%) had repeat serum creatinine performed within 30 days. Chart reviews of the 83 (37.72%) patients with open loops found there was no follow-up creatinine ordered in 69/83 (83.1%) patients. Mean baseline creatinine was higher and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in the closed-loop group (0.92 ± 0.4 mg/dL; 84.45 ± 27.49 mL/min) vs the open-loop group (0.63 ± 0.34 mg/dL; 105.19 ± 26.67 mL/min) (P < .0001). Preexisting chronic kidney disease was more prevalent in closed-loop patients (35/137; 25.6%) compared with those with open loops (3/83; 3.6%). Patients with baseline chronic kidney disease were more likely to have closed loops. Progression to new chronic kidney disease was common among CA-acute kidney injury patients, occurring in 25% of open-loop and 24.1% of closed-loop patients. New baseline eGFR was lower in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently overlooked a clinically significant change in eGFR, especially when the baseline creatinine and incident creatinine levels were in the "normal" range.

Impact of COVID-19 on Characteristics and Funding of U.S. Healthcare Startups: Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: The rise of telehealth and telemedicine during the pandemic allowed patients and providers to develop a sense of comfort with telehealth, which may have increased the demand for virtual-first care solutions with spillover effects into venture capital funding. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the size and type of digital health investments occurring in the prepandemic and pandemic periods. METHODS: We examined health care companies founded from March 14, 2019, to March 14, 2020 (prepandemic) versus those founded from March 15, 2020, to March 14, 2022, after pandemic onset. Data were obtained from Crunchbase, a publicly available database that catalogs information about venture capital investments for companies. We also compared companies founded prepandemic to those founded after the first year of the pandemic (pandemic steady-state). We performed a Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare median funding amounts. We compared the 2 groups of companies according to the type of funding round raised, geography, health care subcategory, total amount of funding per year since founding, and number of founders. RESULTS: There were 2714 and 2218 companies founded prepandemic and during the pandemic, respectively. The companies were similarly distributed across geographies in the prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.46) with no significant differences in the number of founders (P=.32). There was a significant difference in total funding per year since founding between prepandemic and pandemic companies (US $10.8 million vs US $20.9 million; P<.001). The distribution of funding rounds differed significantly for companies founded in prepandemic and pandemic periods (P<.001). On excluding data from the first year of the pandemic, there were 581 companies founded in the pandemic steady-state period from March 14, 2021, to March 14, 2022. Companies founded prepandemic had a significantly greater mean number of founders than those founded during the pandemic (P=.02). There was no significant difference in total funding per year since founding between prepandemic and steady-state pandemic companies (US $10.8 million vs US $14.4 million; P=.34). The most common types of health care companies included wellness, biotech/biopharma, and software companies. Distributions of companies across health care subcategories were not significantly different before and during the pandemic. However, significant differences were identified when data from the first year of the pandemic were excluded (P<.001). Companies founded during the steady-state pandemic period were significantly more likely to be classified as artificial intelligence (7.3% vs 4.7%; P=.005), software (17.3% vs 12.7%; P=.002), and insurance (3.3% vs 1.7%; P=.003), and were significantly less likely to be classified as health care diagnostics (2.4% vs 5.1%; P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate no significant changes in the types of health care companies founded before versus during the pandemic, although significant differences emerge when comparing prepandemic companies to those founded after the first year of the pandemic.

ECHO+: An Innovative Technology-Enabled Collaborative Learning and Quality Improvement Program Strengthening Rural Primary Care in Arkansas, West Virginia, and Oklahoma.

In this paper, we describe the Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes+ (ECHO+) model and evaluation plan for incorporating changes to primary care delivery, improving patient and clinician outcomes, and making long-term system improvements.

Reported Political Participation by Physicians vs Nonphysicians.

This study uses survey data to compare rates of political participation between US physicians and nonphysicians from 2017 to 2021.

Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

Low Rate of Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in an Academic Primary Care Practice with Resident Trainees.

BACKGROUND: A frequent, preventable cause of diagnostic errors involves failure to follow up on diagnostic tests, referrals, and symptoms-termed "failure to close the diagnostic loop." This is particularly challenging in a resident practice where one third of physicians graduate annually, and rates of patient loss due to these transitions may lead to more opportunities for failure to close diagnostic loops. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of failure of loop closure in a resident primary care clinic compared to rates in the faculty practice and identify factors contributing to failure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patient visits from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at two academic medical center-based primary care practices where residents and faculty practice in the same setting. The primary outcome was prevalence of failure to close the loop for (1) dermatology referrals, (2) colonoscopy, and (3) cardiac stress testing. The primary predictor was resident vs. faculty status of the ordering provider. The authors present an unadjusted analysis and the results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating all patient factors to determine their association with loop closure. RESULTS: Of 12,282 orders for referrals and tests for the three studied areas, 1,929 (15.7%) were ordered by a resident physician. Of resident orders for all three tests, 52.9% were completed within the designated time vs. 58.4% for orders placed by attending physicians (p < 0.01). In an unadjusted analysis by test type, a similar trend was seen for colonoscopy (51.4% completion rate for residents vs. 57.5% for attending physicians, p < 0.01) and for cardiac stress testing (55.7% completion rate for residents vs. 61.2% for attending physicians), though a difference was not seen for dermatology referrals (64.2% completion rate for residents vs. 63.7% for attending physicians). In an adjusted analysis, patients with resident orders were less likely than attendings to close the loop for all test types combined (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.98), with low rates of test completion for both physician groups. CONCLUSION: Loop closure for three diagnostic interventions was low for patients in both faculty and resident primary care clinics, with lower loop closure rates in resident clinics. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a safety challenge in primary care and is of particular concern for training programs.

Completion Rates and Timeliness of Diagnostic Colonoscopies for Rectal Bleeding in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Rectal bleeding is the most common presenting symptom of colorectal cancer, and guidelines recommend timely follow-up, usually with colonoscopy to ensure timely diagnoses of colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Identify loop closure rates and vulnerable process points for patients with rectal bleeding. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, using medical record review of patients aged ≥ 40 with index diagnosis of rectal bleeding at 2 primary practices-an urban academic practice and affiliated community health center, between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Patients were classified as having completed recommended follow-up workup ("closed loop") vs. not ("open loop"). Open loop patient cases were categorized into six types of process failures. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 837 patients had coded diagnoses of rectal bleeding within study window. Sixty-seven were excluded based on prior colectomy, clinical presentation more consistent with upper GI bleed, no rectal bleeding documented on chart review, or expired during the follow-up period, leaving 770 patients included. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were percentages of patient cases classified as "open loops" and distribution of these cases into six categories of process failure that were identified. KEY RESULTS: 22.3% of patients (N = 172) failed to undergo timely recommended workup for rectal bleeding. Largest failure categories were patients for whom no procedure was ordered (N = 62, 36%), followed by patients with procedures ordered but never scheduled (N = 44, 26%) or scheduled but subsequently cancelled or not kept (N = 31, 18%). While open loops increased after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this difference was not significant within our study period. CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of patients presenting to primary care with rectal bleeding fail to undergo recommended workup. The majority either have no procedure ordered, or procedure ordered but never scheduled or cancelled and not kept, suggesting these are important failure modes to target in future interventions. Ensuring reliable ordering and processes for timely scheduling and completion of procedures represent critical areas for improving the diagnostic process for patients with rectal bleeding in primary care.

Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in Telehealth vs In-Person Visits.

Importance: Use of telehealth has increased substantially in recent years. However, little is known about whether the likelihood of completing recommended tests and specialty referrals-termed diagnostic loop closure-is associated with visit modality. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for tests and referrals ordered at telehealth visits vs in-person visits and identify associated factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study, all patient visits from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, at 1 large urban hospital-based primary care practice and 1 affiliated community health center in Boston, Massachusetts, were evaluated. Main Measures: Prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for (1) colonoscopy referrals (screening and diagnostic), (2) dermatology referrals for suspicious skin lesions, and (3) cardiac stress tests. Results: The study included test and referral orders for 4133 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [11.7] years; 2163 [52.3%] women; 203 [4.9%] Asian, 1146 [27.7%] Black, 2362 [57.1%] White, and 422 [10.2%] unknown or other race). A total of 1151 of the 4133 orders (27.8%) were placed during a telehealth visit. Of the telehealth orders, 42.6% were completed within the designated time frame vs 58.4% of those ordered during in-person visits and 57.4% of those ordered without a visit. In an adjusted analysis, patients with telehealth visits were less likely to close the loop for all test types compared with those with in-person visits (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that rates of loop closure were low for all test types across all visit modalities but worse for telehealth. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a patient safety challenge in primary care that may be of particular concern during telehealth encounters.

The association between care integration and care quality.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to analyze the relationship between care integration and care quality, and to examine if the relationship varies by patient risk. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: The key independent variables used validated measures derived from a provider survey of functional (i.e., administrative and clinical systems) and social (i.e., patient integration, professional cooperation, professional coordination) integration. Survey responses represented data from a stratified sample of 59 practice sites from 17 health systems. Dependent variables included three quality measures constructed from patient-level Medicare data: colorectal cancer screening among patients at risk, patient-level 30-day readmission, and a practice-level Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) composite measure of publicly reported, individual measures of ambulatory clinical quality performance. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD: We obtained quality- and beneficiary-level covariate data for the 41,966 Medicare beneficiaries served by the 59 practices in our survey sample. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated hierarchical linear models to examine the association between care integration and care quality and the moderating effect of patients' clinical risk score. We graphically visualized the moderating effects at ±1 standard deviation of our z-standardized independent and moderating variables and performed simple slope tests. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our analyses uncovered a strong positive relationship between social integration, specifically patient integration, and the quality of care a patient receives (e.g., a 1-point increase in a practice's patient integration was associated with 0.31-point higher HEDIS composite score, p < 0.01). Further, we documented positive and significant associations between aspects of social and functional integration on quality of care based on patient risk. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest social integration matters for improving the quality of care and that the relationship of integration to quality is not uniform for all patients. Policymakers and practitioners considering structural integrations of health systems should direct attention beyond structure to consider the potential for social integration to impact outcomes and how that might be achieved.

From Revolution to Evolution: Early Experience with Virtual-First, Outcomes-Based Primary Care.

Primary care is foundational to health systems and a common good. The workforce is threatened by outdated approaches to organizing work, payment, and technology. Primary care work should be restructured to support a team-based model, optimized to efficiently achieve the best population health outcomes. In a virtual-first, outcomes-based primary care model, a majority of professional time for primary care team members is protected for virtual, asynchronous patient interactions, collaboration across clinical disciplines, and real-time management of patients with acute and complex concerns. Payments must be re-structured to cover the cost of, and reward the value created by, this advanced model. Technology investments should shift from legacy electronic health records to patient relationship management systems, built to support continuous, outcome-based care. These changes enable primary care team members to focus on building engaged, trusting relationships with patients and their families and collaborating on complex management decisions, and reconnecting team members with joy in clinical practice.

Using Rapid-Cycle Change to Improve COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy in Primary Care.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation and distrust exacerbated disparities in vaccination rates by race and ethnicity throughout the United States. Primary care, public health systems, and community health centers have shifted their vaccination outreach strategies toward these disparate, unvaccinated populations. To support primary care, we developed the SAVE Sprint model for implementing rapid-cycle change to improve vaccination rates by overcoming community outreach barriers and workforce limitations. Participants were recruited for the 10-week SAVE Sprint program through partnerships with the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) and the Resilient American Communities (RAC) Initiative. The majority of the participants were from community health centers. Data were evaluated during the program through progress reports and surveys, and interviews conducted three months post-intervention were recorded, coded, and analyzed. The SAVE Sprint model of rapid-cycle change exceeded participants' expectations and led to improvements in patient education and vaccination among their vulnerable populations. Participants reported building new skills and identifying strategies for targeting specific populations during a public health emergency. However, participants reported that planning for rapid-pace change and trust-building with community partners prior to a health care crisis is preferable and would make navigating an emergency easier.

Partnering for Integrated Care: A Learning Collaborative for Primary Care and Oral Health Teams.

PURPOSE: The Teaming and Integrating for Smiles and Health (TISH) Learning Collaborative was developed to help health care organizations accelerate progress in integrating delivery of oral and primary care. By providing expert support and a structure for testing change, the project aimed to improve the early detection of hypertension in the dental setting and of gingivitis in the primary care setting, and to increase the rate of bidirectional referrals between oral and primary care partners. We report its outcomes. METHODS: A total of 17 primary and oral health care teams were recruited to participate in biweekly virtual calls over 3 months. Participants tested changes to their models of care through Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles between calls. Sites tracked the percentages of patients screened and referred, completed the TeamSTEPPS (Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety) and Interprofessional Assessment questionnaires, and provided qualitative feedback and updates in storyboard presentations. RESULTS: On average, with implementation of the TISH Learning Collaborative, sites displayed a nonrandom improvement in the percentages of patients screened for hypertension, referred for hypertension, referred to primary care, and referred for gingivitis. Gingivitis screening and referral to oral health care were not markedly improved. Qualitative responses indicated that teams made progress in screening and referral workflows, improved communication between medical and dental partners, and furthered understanding of the connection between primary care and oral care among staff and patients. CONCLUSIONS: The TISH project is evidence that a virtual Learning Collaborative is an accessible and productive avenue to improve interprofessional education, further primary care and oral partnerships, and achieve practical progress in integrated care.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Incidence of High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Primary Care Patients with Acute Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether race or ethnicity was associated with the incidence of high-impact chronic low back pain (cLBP) among adults consulting a primary care provider for acute low back pain (aLBP). METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, patients with aLBP were identified through screening at seventy-seven primary care practices from four geographic regions. Incidence of high-impact cLBP was defined as the subset of patients with cLBP and at least moderate disability on Oswestry Disability Index [ODI >30]) at 6 months. General linear mixed models provided adjusted estimates of association between race/ethnicity and high-impact cLBP. RESULTS: We identified 9,088 patients with aLBP (81.3% White; 14.3% Black; 4.4% Hispanic). Black/Hispanic patients compared to White patients, were younger and more likely to be female, obese, have Medicaid insurance, worse disability on ODI, and were at higher risk of persistent disability on STarT Back Tool (all P < .0001). At 6 months, more Black and Hispanic patients reported high-impact cLBP (30% and 25%, respectively) compared to White patients (15%, P < .0001, n = 5,035). After adjusting for measured differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors, compared to White patients, the increased odds of high-impact cLBP remained statistically significant for Black but not Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ration [aOR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.87 and aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.83-1.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased incidence of high-impact cLBP among Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. This disparity was partly explained by racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors. Interventions that target these factors to reduce pain-related disparities should be evaluated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02647658.

Closing the Loop: Re-engineering the Assessment and Tracking of Symptoms in Primary Care.

Reliable systems that track the continuation, progression, or resolution of a patient's symptoms over time are essential for reliable diagnosis and ensuring that patients harboring more worrisome diagnoses are safely followed up. Given their first-contact role and increasing stresses on busy primary care clinicians and practices, new processes that make these tasks easier rather than creating more work for busy clinicians are especially needed.Some symptoms are sufficiently worrisome that they demand an urgent diagnosis and treatment while others result in a differential that can be more safely explored over time, or less differentiated and worrisome that they are best managed with the "test of time" to see if they resolve, worsen, or evolve into symptoms that are more worrisome. Regardless, it is essential that clinicians are able to reliably track symptoms over time, yet this capacity is rarely available or explicit. Working with systems engineers, we are developing prototypes for such systems and are working on their implementation and evaluation. In this commentary, we describe approaches to this essential, but underappreciated, problem in primary care.

Burnout Among Missouri Primary Care Clinicians in 2021: Roadmap for Recovery?

Rates of burnout among clinicians have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 (COVID)pandemic. A survey of Missouri primary care professionals at federally qualified health centers was conducted during a COVID surge in August 2021 to assess burnout, stress, and job satisfaction as well as if respondents had sought assistance for burnout or attended resiliency training. Despite respondents reporting rates of burnout (56%) that exceed those reported nationally (48%), only 17% sought help for burnout. Most (81%) had not attended resiliency training; of those who did, 16% said sessions "make me feel less alone," while an equivalent number found sessions not useful, identifying an absence of resources within their organization. Comments focused on the need for dedicated time to receive support, including time to seek assistance during working hours, time to take breaks, and time for self-care. The data suggest one path forward to remediate burnout: provide the workforce with time to access support.

Analysis of Radiology Report Recommendation Characteristics and Rate of Recommended Action Performance.

Importance: Following up on recommendations from radiologic findings is important for patient care, but frequently there are failures to carry out these recommendations. The lack of reliable systems to characterize and track completion of actionable radiology report recommendations poses an important patient safety challenge. Objectives: To characterize actionable radiology recommendations and, using this taxonomy, track and understand rates of loop closure for radiology recommendations in a primary care setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: Radiology reports in a primary care clinic at a large academic center were redesigned to include actionable recommendations in a separate dedicated field. Manual review of all reports generated from imaging tests ordered between January 1 and December 31, 2018, by primary care physicians that contained actionable recommendations was performed. For this quality improvement study, a taxonomy system that conceptualized recommendations was developed based on 3 domains: (1) what is recommended (eg, repeat a test or perform a different test, specialty referral), (2) specified time frame in which to perform the recommended action, and (3) contingency language qualifying the recommendation. Using this framework, a 2-stage process was used to review patients' records to classify recommendations and determine loop closure rates and factors associated with failure to complete recommended actions. Data analysis was conducted from April to July 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Radiology recommendations, time frames, and contingencies. Rates of carrying out vs not closing the loop on these recommendations in the recommended time frame were assessed. Results: A total of 598 radiology reports were identified with structured recommendations: 462 for additional or future radiologic studies and 196 for nonradiologic actions (119 specialty referrals, 47 invasive procedures, and 43 other actions). The overall rate of completed actions (loop closure) within the recommended time frame was 87.4%, with 31 open loop cases rated by quality expert reviewers to pose substantial clinical risks. Factors associated with successful loop closure included (1) absence of accompanying contingency language, (2) shorter recommended time frames, and (3) evidence of direct radiologist communication with the ordering primary care physicians. A clinically significant lack of loop closure was found in approximately 5% of cases. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that creating structured radiology reports featuring a dedicated recommendations field permits the development of taxonomy to classify such recommendations and determine whether they were carried out. The lack of loop closure suggests the need for more reliable systems.

COVID-19's Perceived Impact on Primary Care in New England: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 impacted primary care delivery, as clinicians and practices implemented changes to respond to the pandemic while safely caring for patients. This study aimed to understand clinicians' perceptions of the positive and negative impacts of COVID-19 on primary care in New England. METHODS: This qualitative interview study was conducted from October through December 2020. Participants included 22 physicians and 2 nurse practitioners practicing primary care in New England. Data were thematically coded and analyzed deductively and inductively using content analysis. RESULTS: Through qualitative content analysis, 4 areas were identified in which clinicians perceived that COVID-19 impacted primary care: 1) bureaucracy, 2) leadership, 3) telemedicine and patient care, and 4) clinician work-life. Our findings suggest that the positive impacts of COVID-19 included changes in primary care delivery, new leadership opportunities for clinicians, flexible access to care for patients via telemedicine, and a better work-life balance for clinicians. Respondents identified negative impacts related to sustaining pandemic-inspired changes, the inability for some populations to access care via telemedicine, and the rapid implementation of telemedicine causing frustration for clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding clinician perspectives on how primary care transformed to respond to COVID-19 helps to identify beneficial pandemic-related changes that should be sustained and ideas for improvement that will support patient care and clinician engagement.

Evaluating a patient safety learning laboratory to create an interdisciplinary ecosystem for health care innovation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the complexity, challenges, and slow pace of innovation, health care organizations are adopting interdisciplinary team approaches. Systems engineering, which is oriented to creating new, scalable processes that perform with higher reliability and lower costs, holds promise for driving innovation in the face of challenges to team performance. A patient safety learning laboratory (lab) can be an essential aspect of fostering interdisciplinary team innovation across multiple projects and organizations by creating an ecosystem focused on deploying systems engineering methods to accomplish process redesign. PURPOSE: We sought to identify the role and activities of a learning ecosystem that support interdisciplinary team innovation through evaluation of a patient safety learning lab. METHODS: Our study included three participating learning lab project teams. We applied a mixed-methods approach using a convergent design that combined data from qualitative interviews of team members conducted as teams neared the completion of their redesign projects, as well as evaluation questionnaires administered throughout the 4-year learning lab. RESULTS: Our results build on learning theories by showing that successful learning ecosystems continually create alignment between interdisciplinary teams' activities, organizational context, and innovation project objectives. The study identified four types of alignment, interpersonal/interprofessional, informational, structural, and processual, and supporting activities for alignment to occur. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary learning ecosystems have the potential to foster health care improvement and innovation through alignment of team activities, project goals, and organizational contexts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study applies to interdisciplinary teams tackling multilevel system challenges in their health care organization and suggests that the work of such teams benefits from the four types of alignment. Alignment on all four dimensions may yield best results.